Filed under: Flex-Fuel, Hydrogen, Ford, UK
Roush Technologies converts Ford Transit van to hydrogen flex-fuel
Roush Technologies has been working on flexible fuel vehicles for the last few years. Unlike most manufacturers, which seem to be focusing on using either ethanol or gasoline in their flex-fuel vehicles, Roush Technologies has been integrating compressed hydrogen power into normal internal combustion engines. The latest example to come from the company is based on a Ford Transit van and is being shown at the Cenex-hosted UK National Low Carbon Vehicle event at Millbrook Proving Ground. The Transit features a 2.3-liter Ford engine that is capable of running on gasoline or hydrogen and features a supercharger and intercooler that help the vehicle make enough power when running on the compressed gas. That hydrogen is stored in a 5000psi tank, which holds enough of the gas to run the vehicle for up to 135 miles.
Roush Technologies has also been working with Britain's ITM Power on hydrogen refueling stations. The resulting filling units use electrolysis technology to generate hydrogen from water on-site. The two companies point out that the necessary infrastructures for water and electricity are already in place and the hydrogen generators can use any form of electricity - including renewables - to operate and that hydrogen emits zero carbon dioxide as it burns.
[Source: Roush Technologies]
PRESS RELEASE:
Roush bi-fuel conversion brings hydrogen fuel to existing ICE technology
Roush Technologies shows its latest bi-fuel Internal Combustion Engine conversion (H2ICE) technology at the Cenex hosted UK National Low Carbon Vehicle event at Millbrook Proving Ground tomorrow (28th October 2008). Roush has modified the engine of a Ford Transit-based vehicle to operate using compressed hydrogen gas fuel – but it can also operate from its existing petrol fuelled system without any adverse effects.
The special demonstration vehicle is designed to show that hydrogen as a fuel – and the associated equipment – are practical and efficient in a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. The concept is expected to accelerate the availability of CO2-free, hydrogen-fuelled commercial vehicles operating in Britain.
The conversion features Ford's 2.3-litre 4-cylinder petrol engine, to which Roush has added a belt-driven supercharger with intercooler. This provides additional combustion air under pressure when the fuel mode switch is selected to hydrogen only. The engine retains its conventional spark ignition system.
The hydrogen fuel is currently designed to be stored in three tanks, underslung below the vehicle floor. This installation provides a usable storage capacity for 4.5 kilograms of hydrogen at 350bar (5000psi) and gives an estimated range between 95 miles for the urban cycle and 135 miles for open highway running. Additional capacity can be added if required. Importantly, the location and configuration of the tanks allows the retention of the volume and load height of the base vehicle – with no intrusion or interference within the load space.
Roush Technologies recently established a collaboration agreement with ITM Power plc to provide the breakthrough refuelling solution by enabling vehicle operators to generate their own hydrogen fuel. Using a patented electrolyser, due to enter production at ITM's special facility in Sheffield later this year, it is possible to make hydrogen fuel wherever there is a source of electricity and water.
The advances in electrolysis technology that ITM has achieved elegantly address the hydrogen infrastructure issue by using the already developed electricity and water distribution network. The electrolyser can produce hydrogen from water and any source of electricity including off-peak or renewable energy – electricity generated by wind, wave or solar power. Unlike petrol or diesel, when hydrogen burns, it releases no CO2, merely water vapour.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TX CHL Instructor 1:05PM (10/28/2008)
Using hydrogen to fuel an automobile is insanely stupid.
Using hydrogen in an ICE is even worse.
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:06PM (10/28/2008)
What is the cost per mile for gas?
What is the cost per mile for hydrogen produced via electrolysis? What is the efficiency of electricity->hydrogen->burn->motion?
I bet it sucks(20% efficient), much worse than electricity->batteries->electric motor->motion(85% efficient).
My guess is they don't save any money unless the hydrogen comes from reformulated natural gas.
Reply
wave54 6:28PM (10/28/2008)
Not defending on-site electrolysis to produce hydrogen, but...
What's the efficiency of drilling wells and extracting crude oil, transporting it through pipelines to coastal terminals, then loading it onto ocean tankers, then traveling sometimes halfway around the world, then off-loading at petroleum terminals where the crude is piped or loaded onto barges to reach a refinery where it is then refined into various fuels, then piped, trucked or loaded onto barges or railroad cars to storage tank farms, then trucked to hundreds of thousands of retail locations where it can then be pumped into your vehicle?
This doesn't even address the issue of mandatory ethanol in gasoline that's required in many locations. Ethanol can't be piped, so must be driven to individual tank farms to be blended with unleaded.
After all is said and done, what is the efficiency, literally from well-to-wheel, compared to producing hydrogen on-site from water and electricity?
Without all the exploration, drilling, transporting, refining and more transporting inefficiencies; I'm not so sure that hydrogen would lose.
Chris M 7:26PM (10/28/2008)
Actually, efficiency is less than 7%. This is a really poor way to power a vehicle on limited and expensive renewable energy.
The fuel cost per mile is likely to be higher for H2 than for petrol, unless the UK government decides to jack the petrol taxes up even higher and heavily subsidize the cost of tax free H2 fuel.
Unfortunately, those high pressure H2 tanks don't come cheap, the conversion would be well over 40K pounds. A plug-in hybrid conversion would be less expensive to buy, much more efficient, and considerably less expensive to run.
I suspect ITM is just looking to pick up big government H2 subsidies, and isn't really serious about production.